Roald Dahl – And Thoughts on Fiction and History

Novels are vessels that carry our past. If we abandon or amend them, we relinquish or alter our past. Oliver Twist, published in 1838, provides a look at first-half-19th Century London, an unpleasant place to be poor. Tolstoy's War and Peace, written in 1869 provides a Russian perspective on the Napoleonic Wars, which were devastating for both victor and vanquished. Joel Chandler Harris, born and raised in Georgia, wrote Uncle Remus in 1881, during Reconstruction and the early Jim Crow era, a time when blacks in America were treated badly. These books make some uncomfortable, but they are social commentaries on their time. Fiction speaks to thoughts people had, words they spoke, and actions they took. Through them we can trace the arc of civilization as it has advanced over the centuries.

Last week Penguin Random House made the sensible decision to rescind their earlier announcement that only expurgated versions of Roald Dahl's books for children would be published by Penguin Young Readers Group in the U.S. and Puffin Books in the UK. Now, copies with the original language will be branded as The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, to differentiate them from edited copies for more sensitive readers. However, it is troubling that the change came only after a backlash that included such writers as Salmon Rushdie (a man who knows what it is to be censored) and Camilla, United Kingdom's Queen Consort, who urged writers to "remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination." Wise words from a well-read woman. Consumers are best served when offered a choice, which is what Penguin is now doing.

Changing words in books is not the same as censorship, but it is illustrative of a different problem – the coddling of American youth. Young children were once taught to prepare for a tough world. The old adage: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" has been updated to conform with today's more sensitive culture: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can also harm me. /Stones and sticks break only skin, while words are ghosts that haunt me." It is not that parents of my generation (and earlier) were unaware of bullying and taunting or did not love their children. They were and they did. They also wanted them to be responsible, accountable, and respective of others. We also knew the world is a tough place, and we knew that children should be prepared.

Both the left and the right have been guilty of banning and/or challenging books that do not conform to their ideologies. A photograph of California's Gavin Newsome was published in the April 7, 2022 issue of Newsweek. He was "reading some banned books." In his hands was a copy of Toni Morrison's Beloved (banned by the right). On the table was a copy of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird (banned by the left). On the right, books on LBGTQ subjects have been challenged or banned in some elementary schools, books like George by Alex Gino, Stamped: Racism, Anti-racism, and You by Ibram X and Jason Reynolds, and All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely. Some parents feel the books' content age-inappropriate for their young children, and their wishes should be respected. The left has placed challenges or imposed bans on books they see as insensitive to gender and racial issues, like George Orwell's 1984, Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck.

It took a while, and their initial, instinctive reaction was wrong, but Penguin Random House made the right decision in offering readers a choice. Roald Dahl was known as an antisemite and misogynist, but his books have sold over 300 million copies since the early 1940s. His books, and movies made from them, have entertained and enlivened the lives of millions of children in dozens of countries. Penguin's decision ensures that millions more will have the delight of knowing Willy Wonka, Augustus Gloop, Matilda Wormwood, and many others.

None of this is to argue that fiction is always accurate in its portrayal of the past. It is, after all, fiction, meant to tell a story, to make a point. And historical figures, like public ones today, are generally more nuanced than shown. Nevertheless, we get a sense of life in mid 19th Century English debtors' prison by reading of Charles Dickens' Amy Dorrit and of what it was like to grow up black in 1930s Alabama by getting to know Harper Lee's character, Tom Robinson.

Changing words in any book leads to a slippery slope, more associated with totalitarian regimes than with a nation of free people. Let us pray that the media coverage of the Dahl episode will cause both sides to reconsider their efforts to ban or challenge books that do not suit their particular political ideology. As Elie Wiesel said in his talk on NPR fifteen years ago, in speaking of the horrors he suffered during the Holocaust: "…our stories are essential – essential to memory." Most writers today were not alive then, but knowledgeable and empathetic writers of fiction can provide readers a sense of time and place, of what caused the tragic events in Germany. Such stories may prevent future nightmares. Not all that is written is true, but truth only emerges when authors are free from censors, when books are not altered, challenged, or banned, and when readers are free to decide for themselves what to read.

Sydney M. Williams

March 1, 2023